thevortex Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 Bossbhai and Lord - by my reckoning that ball could not have hit middle of middle stump. It could only be hitting leg stump. Not shaving it, but hitting it full. In this case it does not make a difference. That was a mistake and Ponting was out. But a stump's worth of distance is a huge thing when it comes to Hawkeye. I know Lord disagrees. By the way, Lord, I am also saying he was out. The ball was just not hitting middle of middle.
thevortex Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 Bossbhai - simply put I do not agree with this representation at all. I am one hundred percent sure that you too would not agree to this if you had seen it happen live. A pity that could not be. But I will be sure to make a note of all such cases where I feel Hawkeye has been errant and I will draw your attention to it or at least try to do so.
Gunner_Mania Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 Bossbhai and Lord - by my reckoning that ball could not have hit middle of middle stump. It could only be hitting leg stump. Not shaving it, but hitting it full. In this case it does not make a difference. That was a mistake and Ponting was out. But a stump's worth of distance is a huge thing when it comes to Hawkeye. I know Lord disagrees. By the way, Lord, I am also saying he was out. The ball was just not hitting middle of middle. By the umpire's reckoning that ball wouldn't have hit the stumps at all. Now Hawk-eye is better than the umpire, at best as per your reckoning it is only missing by the distance of a stump. This is the point I've been arguing , its howlers like this that H/E can eliminate and for those mariginal decisions like teh Strauss one the umpire has the final say.
thevortex Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 Iam afraid you are arguing for the sake of it without any factual substantion to backup your case. whereas I have provided detailed explanation with video footage and snap shots to prove my case. I am sad that you are not really getting the point. Can the same not be said of you (arguing for the sake of it) when you decide to arbitrarily hail Hawkeye despite the absence of concrete evidence of its accuracy? Think for a moment. And did you actually see the live action or even the recorded highlights of that incident? ohh yeah I can agree to that but see thats the whole advantage of slowing things down and taking a second look using technology. things happen quite rapidly in a lbw scenario and its humanly impossible to compute all variables and arrive at the right decision. And to be alert on a ball-by-ball basis over 5 days is just un-realistic. So, then, why have the guys in the white coats? Lets take them off then, if expecting them to take the right decisions is so unrealistic. Honestly do you believe the players would stand nonsense forever? The playing group respect the umpires and vice versa. And they respect officials for their intuition and judgment of the game. And that is not going to change - if ICC has any sense left over. Cricket alarmists predicted the death of ODIs. See where that has gone. Same way dont you worry - the men in the white coats are there to stay, no matter what you think. dig thru the scorecard of the kolkatta test which has ball-by-ball hawkeye data ... thats more than 4 days worth of test cricket ...if you are not happy with that then you can lookup the first test data as well ... that too has ball-by-ball H/E data .... if you cant find fault on such a huge sample then perhaps H/E is truly accurate !! You see to think that 2 Tests are a wonderful sample to predict the accuracy of the whole gamut of aspects that Hawkeye brings into play. Obviously you are mistaken. Like I said, when I come across incidents I will let you know, if you are interested. If not, lets agree to disagree and move on.
thevortex Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 By the umpire's reckoning that ball wouldn't have hit the stumps at all. Now Hawk-eye is better than the umpire' date=' at best [i']as per your reckoning it is only missing by the distance of a stump. This is the point I've been arguing , its howlers like this that H/E can eliminate and for those mariginal decisions like teh Strauss one the umpire has the final say. In this case, Gunner, I have no qualms in admitting that Hawkeye could have prevented a howler. I have pointed out in depth as to what my problems are with Hawkeye. Do you not believe that a stump distance worth of distance is enough to throw off Hawkeye's accuracy and veracity when it comes to being presented as the 'sole evidence' for the 3rd umpire?
Gunner_Mania Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 In this case, Gunner, I have no qualms in admitting that Hawkeye could have prevented a howler. I have pointed out in depth as to what my problems are with Hawkeye. Do you not believe that a stump distance worth of distance is enough to throw off Hawkeye's accuracy and veracity when it comes to being presented as the 'sole evidence' for the 3rd umpire? Well I think it is better than not having any evidence. If you didn't have the predicted path element, then different 3rd umpires are bound to make different interpretations which is just the same as the pre-technology era. Now at least they have some evidence to help the umpires make a reasonably fair decision. I think Hawkeye is not 100% accurate but it is not as inaccurate as you make it sound either and that is probably the best place of agreement we will reach.
thevortex Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 Fair enough, Gunner. I, for one, am a fan of Taufel and the moment I reckon Hawkeye is better than him when it comes to prediction, I will be OK with it being part of cricket regularly.
thevortex Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 I never called Hawkeye - a lemon technology. So please dont put words in my mouth. If nobody goes to watch the umpires, then why have them? You did not answer that question. So, based on what you caught of the footage, did you think the ball would have hit middle of middle stump as shown by Hawkeye? Your last point is a classic case of statistics being worse than lies. Out of those 4000 balls how many involved a Hawkeye based decision? And out of those which of those were contentious. Not all Test matches need to have contentious decisions or even borderline ones. I am sure you understand. And no, 2 Tests are NOT enough to say whether a technology is good or not. Come on Bossbhai - I dont like the direction this is going. Lets just agree to disagree. :)
thevortex Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 I did call the entire thing nonsensical. Including but not limited to ICC's lame-brained implementation plan, Bossbhai. However I did not call Hawkeye ' a lemon technology'. I dont understand this soft spot that you have for Hawkeye. It is technology. A product of science. Where are the numbers? Where are the stats? Why dont you want to crunch them numbers? I have asked this many times and I have never ever got a straight answer out of you on this point. Ok, if you believe that that ball hit middle of middle stump, then we may as well drop that. :) About Hawkeye being correct or not, there may certainly have been examples. I am talking about decisions. They are the most visible. Although I did follow most of the series live, I am sorry I dont remember specific occurrences of this type.
thevortex Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 By the way, are you awake today to catch the IPL? It must be hard for those not in India to catch up on the IPL, na? How will you guys manage to last the rest of the day if you stay up all night like this?
thevortex Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 Why dont we just leave it be, Bossbhai? How do we believe that the ball had just a yard to travel before it hit the stumps? How do we believe that the impact depiction is dead accurate? By the way the impact did not take place outside off stump. I saw it live and then saw multiple replays. Hawkeye can show whatever it likes.
thevortex Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 I plan on missing the entire IPL .... I would rather watch a test match between Zim and BD than that ... but yes i do need sleep :P Commendable! I wish I could summon reserves of will power like that. Cricket still draws me in - whatever little of it is left in among the DLF Maximums and other such inanities, that is :) I have a friend who took an oath to not watch IPL and wanted me to take part. I had to disappoint him :(.
thevortex Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 Bossbhai - I dont think either of us is going to convince the other in this matter :). So if they superimpose the footage (I dont know how you know this) then Hawkeye must have zero errors right? That is not the case. Even you would not argue against that, hopefully. All I am sure of is there is no way that that ball could have crashed into middle of middle stump. So when I say it would have hit the leg stump then it would only have to move one stump width not two as you mentioned a few posts earlier. In the distance of a yard, this is eminently possible.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now